Capitalism, a false ideology?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


If a 7 figure net worth is all you have to go by, there's not much of a "rise," is it?

Given that we are talking about poverty and the lack of, what other figures do I "have to go by" if not net worth?

define rise

Every ancestor prior to my grandparents was either a farmer, coal miner, or a low-paid immigrant worker of the sort that people on this board like to ***** about/for. On both sides of my family. Not a single person graduated with a college education until 1953, not a one completed high school before 1948. On both sides. They settled in West Virginia which has never been a crossroads of the Rich and Connected. (Trust me on this.)

However, we were not raised to whine and we were raised to work and save our money* - I was installing mobile homes at the age of 8, for example. By the time of my (maternal) grandparents death, we calculated that out of 7 distinct couples/individuals (we have a very small family - Dad was an only child, my mother had a brother who remained childless; so I had no cousins) 6 of them were worth 6 figures (net worth), of those, 4 were worth 7, and of those, 2 were worth 8.

My brother is slightly retarded but he still pulls in $40+k a year driving trucks. He doesn't save his money worth ****, but then he doesn't have to - we've taken care of his needs already, so when he can't work anymore, he won't have to.

*My wife once described us as a "bunch of charming workaholics." That was before she met my uncle, and she did offer a caveat re: my stepmother.

[Arrian]

ps- I don't think all Americans are brainwashed, I know more about the differences amongst Americans then the average American knows about the rest of the world (taken into account that most Americans think the world is America, that's why whenever their film corporations buy a film they like the look of they always have to remake it in American terms coz overwise they don't get it).

I'm going to keep this short, and to the point:

**** you.

-Arrian

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by problem_child
My point was that the only reason why we have Capitalism, free-market economics and Globalisation as 'principals', is because in the past they had to be enshrined as superior to a system that specificaly promised social justice. If it weren't for that, people would still buy and sell, and occasionaly governments would protect, and tax and invest, and people wouldn't be afraid to touch the holy cow (the markets) in order to persue other priorities (like the health service (for instance the US health system is set up to benifit insurance companies and their shareholders) or education).

Right, that's why Canadians flock across the border to get our healthcare, and droves of Canadian doctors are leaving their country to practice in the US. Universal Healthcare is useless if you have to wait six months to get an MRI.

Problem_child, you are just one immature arrogant brat who knows **** about reality.

[Japher]

for instance the US health system is set up to benifit insurance companies and their shareholders

Resist trolling...

The US health care system is not the best, but it does supply I higher degree of service to a greater number of people in a more timely manner than any other system does. By the way, insurance companies are in a real bind right now and are raising costs. Why? The growing number of elderly and the increasing cost of pharmaceuticals. This is not to benefit shareholders, rather it is to stay in buisness so that service can still be provided.

[Lord Merciless]

This is why healthcare system is such a mess right now:

Because human lives are valued supreme, FDA has to impose draconian drug policies.

Because draconian drug policies, pharmacauticals have to spend decades and billions just to get to the clinical trial stage. Then after bilions more, only 1 out of 10 drugs will be approved by FDA on average. Since a patent lasts only 17 years, drug companies have only a few years to recoup the R&D costs on open market, and thus drving up drug costs like mad.

At same time, hospitals and doctors have to pay outrageous insurance premiums to protect themselves from those monstrous malpractice ligitations. A doctor pays at least 30k a year for malpractice insurance. To compensate for that, they have to raise their premiums.

Meanwhile, the health insurance companies have to raise their premiums to compensate for the rising drug and medical costs, finally screwing over consumers in the end. And because healthcare costs are so expensive, it's a absolute nightmare to get sick without an insurance.


There are only 2 solutions to this problem:
1. Cap the malpractice, punitive damage, and all kinds of litigation costs. Given how much human lives are values in our society, this is not likely to happen.

2. Lower the R&D costs of healthcare related products. Unfortunately, biological sciences are largely 'black magic', meaning there is a long way to go. Once drug and medical equipment can be developed as fast as today's electronics, you will be surprised about how low healthcare costs can go.

[Az]

Because draconian drug policies, pharmacauticals have to spend decades and billions just to get to the clinical trial stage. Then after bilions more, only 1 out of 10 drugs will be approved by FDA on average. Since a patent lasts only 17 years, drug companies have only a few years to recoup the R&D costs on open market, and thus drving up drug costs like mad.

On the contrary, the fact that a patent lasts only 17 years is good, since after that, you get them dirt cheap.

The bottom line is that you people don't have all of your population treated. Is that true? The truth is also, that you people pay the most per capita, for health.

I think something is screwed up, since medicine costs are the same here. ( The level of malpractice insurance are crazy, however. OTOH, we don't have no cap, or any such thing, and for some reason, there is no such problem. )

[Kramerman]

Communism was created by people thinking scientifically, and sensibly.

communism is sociologically flawed. it is hardly 'scientific'. its very difficult to say that economics in general is even scientific, let alone one of its off-shoot cacanamey ideas

[Japher]

On the contrary, the fact that a patent lasts only 17 years is good, since after that, you get them dirt cheap.

Do you know how much it costs to create a facility to generate generic drugs? Ever hear of patent extensions? I work for a company that develops ways to increase the "life span" of a drug...

Cost of service equates to level of service.

The whole population not being treated is something of a concern. However, there are free clinics and facilities that cater to those without insurance or means to pay, sometimes the public has to help themselves and go to these.

[Arrian]

Clearly our system isn't as good as it could be. On the other hand, I don't care for the idea of long waits for care under socialized medicine. Something has to give...

It seems one can pick two of the following three:

-High Quality
-Fast
-Everyone has coverage

So you trade off the speed and maybe a bit of quality (those two are intertwined, I would think, since the faster you start treating something, the better your chances of beating it) in exchange for allowing for at least basic care for everyone. I'm not necessarily against that. I'm just not sure.

I do recall someone (DanS, DocStrangelove?) mentioning the high cost associated with US Hospitals caring for the uninsured anyway in the Emergency Room, and that cost of course ends up being paid by everyone else, but probably less efficiently than if we had some sort of tax-payer funded basic care package.

-Arrian

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Azazel

The bottom line is that you people don't have all of your population treated. Is that true? The truth is also, that you people pay the most per capita, for health.

Our healthcare providers are the best in the world, if you can pay.

I think something is screwed up, since medicine costs are the same here. ( The level of malpractice insurance are crazy, however. OTOH, we don't have no cap, or any such thing, and for some reason, there is no such problem. )

My take is those outrageous litigation costs are the major difference your and our systems.

[Az]

Our healthcare providers are the best in the world, if you can pay.

what do you mean by that? basic treatment? could be true, could be not. the simpler hospital procedures? could be true could be not.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Azazel

Our healthcare providers are the best in the world, if you can pay.

what do you mean by that? basic treatment? could be true, could be not. the simpler hospital procedures? could be true could be not.

Our hospitals and doctors.

[Az]

Why are you so sure?

[Adam Smith]

Gini Index and Distribution of World Income

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Check out the Ginni Index, when you have time.

The Gini Index essentially measures what percentage of the world's income is accounted for by what percentage of the world's population. If all the world's income were distributed equally, this graph would be a straight line. Since income is not equally distributed, the curve is convex.

1. The Gini Index measures relative income, and can be misleading to the point of uselessness when you have wide variations in growth rates. Consider the following World Bank Data on real GDP per capita from 1960 to 1999.

Japan +433%
China +381%
Indonesia +262%
India +132%
US +117%

The first four countries account for the vast majority of Asia's population, and a good chunk of the world's population. The size and growth of these countries alone would have made other developing countries look poorer on a relative basis even if every other developing country on the planet had grown as fast as the United States.

2. Since the Gini measures relative income, it can hide actual growth in income. For example, Nigeria and South Africa, the two most populous countries in sub-Saharan Africa had increases in real per capita GDP of 70 percent and 42 percent respectively. Much of sub-Saharan Africa has 20-30 percent increases in real per capita GDP over the period. It would be very helpful if their growth were greater, but these countries are certainly better off then they were at independence 40 years ago.

3. Growth clearly varies by region and/or type of government. Five of the six fastest growing countries are Asian: Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan. These countries, with little other resources than their labor, clearly "get it". Midrange countries include Mexico, India, and Chile, all in the 130-140 percent range. (Which, incidentally, is greater than the growth of per capita GPD in the US and most major industrialized countries in the period.) These mid-range countries don’t appear to be doing badly at all, regardless of what anti-globalization advocates might tell you. Lastly there is the bottom end of the range, countries with growth in real per capita GDP of less than 10 percent between 1960 and 1999. These countries include Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Benin, Central African Republic, Burundi, etc. With growth rates of under 10 percent over the period, these countries are treading water or perhaps regressing a bit. Since other countries in the region have done better, on wonders if poor government has played a role here.

[Sandman]

Contrary to some of the opinions expressed here, social mobility is much greater in Britain than in the US, thanks to the relatively cheap education system.